I do not believe there is a conspiracy between scientists and politicians. For one, conspiracy implies plotting in secrete and two, I do not believe most of the scientists are baking the data. The motives of the politicians that are funding the scientists on the other hand, well that is a different story. For them it is all about using this information to control the masses. Here are some examples:

Government control over citizens thermostats: The State of CaliforniaForcing people to move towards a Vegan diet: The United NationsForced abortions and mass sterilizations (population control): John Holdren Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.Cap and Trade Policy: President Obama, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

To Laurens,

The Paleomap Project to my knowledge is peer reviewed and it is used by NASA. Which is what this chart is based off of:

It clearly shows a steady increase in temperature beginning at the end of the last ice age when there were only about a million primitive humans on the planet. Again, to my knowledge there is only one crack pot who thinks humans are the ones who caused the temperatures to rise during that time period.

To MGK,

How is it absurd? Contributing and causing are not synonymous? Anthropogenic means human caused. I concede that humans over the past century have caused a drastic increase in the earth's temperature but we are not the only players in this game.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

I do not believe there is a conspiracy between scientists and politicians. For one, conspiracy implies plotting in secrete and two, I do not believe most of the scientists are baking the data. The motives of the politicians that are funding the scientists on the other hand, well that is a different story. For them it is all about using this information to control the masses. Here are some examples:

Government control over citizens thermostats: The State of CaliforniaForcing people to move towards a Vegan diet: The United NationsForced abortions and mass sterilizations (population control): John Holdren Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.Cap and Trade Policy: President Obama, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

To Laurens,

The Paleomap Project to my knowledge is peer reviewed and it is used by NASA. Which is what this chart is based off of:

It clearly shows a steady increase in temperature beginning at the end of the last ice age when there were only about a million primitive humans on the planet. Again, to my knowledge there is only one crack pot who thinks humans are the ones who caused the temperatures to rise during that time period.

To MGK,

How is it absurd? Contributing and causing are not synonymous? Anthropogenic means human caused. I concede that humans over the past century have caused a drastic increase in the earth's temperature but we are not the only players in this game.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

EDITED: Fixed link

If I handed you a cookie, and on the wrapper it stated that there was a better than 90% probability that the cookie contained a lethal dose of arsenic, would you still eat the cookie?

The Paleomap Project to my knowledge is peer reviewed and it is used by NASA. Which is what this chart is based off of:

It clearly shows a steady increase in temperature beginning at the end of the last ice age when there were only about a million primitive humans on the planet. Again, to my knowledge there is only one crack pot who thinks humans are the ones who caused the temperatures to rise during that time period.

Do you think climate scientists are not aware of paleo-climate and are not factoring it into their calculations? How daft are these scientists in your mind?

The Paleomap Project to my knowledge is peer reviewed and it is used by NASA. Which is what this chart is based off of:

It clearly shows a steady increase in temperature beginning at the end of the last ice age when there were only about a million primitive humans on the planet. Again, to my knowledge there is only one crack pot who thinks humans are the ones who caused the temperatures to rise during that time period.

My net-connection here in my holiday domicile is fairly slow so I won't research the underlying data, but I'd like to nit-pick one thing:The chart you show in your image and the one that can be found at the Paleomap Project are not at all the same. Notice that the Paleomap picture shows temperatures from 10,°C to 25,°C, while the one you show has temperatures from only 12,°C to 22,°C. I have no idea how the chart is "based on" the Paleomap picture, but I'm sure it's legit.

I've already linked to the rebuttal of the argument "But climate has changed before". There's also a post related to the image you're showing, but it's not directly about your question. There might be some relevant info.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

The Paleomap Project to my knowledge is peer reviewed and it is used by NASA. Which is what this chart is based off of:

It clearly shows a steady increase in temperature beginning at the end of the last ice age when there were only about a million primitive humans on the planet. Again, to my knowledge there is only one crack pot who thinks humans are the ones who caused the temperatures to rise during that time period.

Neither myself or any other scientist that I'm aware of denies that climate has changed in the past.

These warming/cooling events are thought to have had a myriad of causes. Can you please explain how they refute Homo sapiens as being the cause of this particular bout of warming?

I do not believe there is a conspiracy between scientists and politicians. For one, conspiracy implies plotting in secrete and two, I do not believe most of the scientists are baking the data. The motives of the politicians that are funding the scientists on the other hand, well that is a different story. For them it is all about using this information to control the masses. Here are some examples:

Government control over citizens thermostats: The State of CaliforniaForcing people to move towards a Vegan diet: The United NationsForced abortions and mass sterilizations (population control): John Holdren Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.Cap and Trade Policy: President Obama, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

To Laurens,

The Paleomap Project to my knowledge is peer reviewed and it is used by NASA. Which is what this chart is based off of:

It clearly shows a steady increase in temperature beginning at the end of the last ice age when there were only about a million primitive humans on the planet. Again, to my knowledge there is only one crack pot who thinks humans are the ones who caused the temperatures to rise during that time period.

To MGK,

How is it absurd? Contributing and causing are not synonymous? Anthropogenic means human caused. I concede that humans over the past century have caused a drastic increase in the earth's temperature but we are not the only players in this game.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

EDITED: Fixed link

If I handed you a cookie, and on the wrapper it stated that there was a better than 90% probability that the cookie contained a lethal dose of arsenic, would you still eat the cookie?

Two sections of that quote were highlighted, with two words underlined. Probability does not equal proof and much does not equal all.

Inferno wrote:My net-connection here in my holiday domicile is fairly slow so I won't research the underlying data, but I'd like to nit-pick one thing:The chart you show in your image and the one that can be found at the Paleomap Project are not at all the same. Notice that the Paleomap picture shows temperatures from 10,°C to 25,°C, while the one you show has temperatures from only 12,°C to 22,°C. I have no idea how the chart is "based on" the Paleomap picture, but I'm sure it's legit.

I've already linked to the rebuttal of the argument "But climate has changed before". There's also a post related to the image you're showing, but it's not directly about your question. There might be some relevant info.

Yeah, I am not really sure why New Mexico State University changed the graph from the original and to be honest I did not even noticed it until now. I have read the articles from Skeptical Science before and I understand that past climate change does not prove humans are not responsible for climate change now. However, theories of past caused climate change are not 100 percent conclusive and change all the time. For example, one theory why the "Little Ice Age" occurred was due to a decline in the human population due to disease. An article from Science Daily which is conveniently not loading at the moment, claims the cooling started a couple of hundred years before disease hit the New World. The article theorizes lower sun irradiance was most likely responsible. Other theories of the cause was from greater volcanic activity. What ever caused the temps to drop it is pretty obvious that humans were not the sole cause and it stands to reason temps would return to the averages they were before the anomalies occurred. So it seems a little premature to pointing fingers at humans when theories change so often. Especially when so many want to start hacking away at individual liberties.

Laurens wrote:Neither myself or any other scientist that I'm aware of denies that climate has changed in the past.

These warming/cooling events are thought to have had a myriad of causes. Can you please explain how they refute Homo sapiens as being the cause of this particular bout of warming?

It doesn't refute but it does prove that temps have been rising well before modern humans started mucking up the environment. I have yet to see evidence that the temps leveled off and were going to stabilize if it were not for humans. Also, when scientists like Micheal Mann say things like this: (from this 2012 article)

By itself, this finding didn't indicate that humans were solely responsible for the warming, but it was a compelling demonstration that something unusual was happening and, by inference, that it was probably related to human activity. Over the last few decades, the evidence, based on work from thousands of studies, has become much more robust and conclusive.

Laurens wrote:Neither myself or any other scientist that I'm aware of denies that climate has changed in the past.

These warming/cooling events are thought to have had a myriad of causes. Can you please explain how they refute Homo sapiens as being the cause of this particular bout of warming?

It doesn't refute but it does prove that temps have been rising well before modern humans started mucking up the environment. I have yet to see evidence that the temps leveled off and were going to stabilize if it were not for humans. Also, when scientists like Micheal Mann say things like this: (from this 2012 article)

I haven't---nor has anyone that I'm aware of---claimed that if humans weren't around the climate would be inherently stable, all we are saying is that the current evidence suggests that the current bout of rapid warming is apparently caused by humans, and may have disastrous implications if we do not act to reduce green house gas emissions.

With the recent events of the Greenland ice melt, perhaps by the end of the year, there will be no panties to be hung on the line. I must check my models for predictive accuracy.

There is still light in the 'Earthly' darkness. Finding light in the darkness can be more satisfying than merely seeing the glaring light of our sun. It gives us a better understanding of light and a deeper understanding of our universe.﻿